1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

flat_earth_really?, I also believe that this is a troll board. However, you seem to be a little too belligerent with the FErs. Can we try to make this a gentleman's debate?

1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

1) No2) Because the Earth has been proven to be flat. Also, good.

1) Well that's not really fair. I was going to put dinosaurs in my model. We could have played Jurassic Park.2) No it hasn't. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

1) Do we all get to make up these hilarious models?2) How can any of this rubbish possibly be more scientifically accurate than all of the mainstream theories you have discarded due to being "based on conjecture?" Every time you post more nonsense, baby Jesus soils himself in disgust.

flat_earth_really?, I also believe that this is a troll board. However, you seem to be a little too belligerent with the FErs. Can we try to make this a gentleman's debate?

I am just saying that you do not need to be rude with your posts. I have just as much fun here as you do, yet I try not to make it a personal issue with the FErs. I like the debates, but I do no think we need to use words like FEtards and such. Just use logic and reasoning. Their theory just falls apart.

I never claimed there were webcams pointing to where the Sun rises and sets. I said there are webcams pointing to where the Sun rises or sets.

Ah, yes, another semantics challenge. A challenge that I will accept, nonetheless.If there's one camera pointing at the Sun rising and one camera pointing at the Sun setting, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises and sets.If there are two cameras pointing at either where the Sun rises or where the Sun sets, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises or sets.If there existed two cameras pointing at both where the Sun rises and sets, an extra adjective would be necessary to avoid ambiguity with a logically possible situation. For example: There are cameras pointing to both where the Sun rises and sets.It is very important to understand the difference between the two before trying to be a pedant about it. It also doesn't get you too far in the argument.

I suppose I can sit down and work out which cameras are pointing in the direction the sun rises or sets at this time of year, if that's that you really want.

...and now I'm supposed to do your job for you? Might that be because you've tried and found out that your claim is entirely baseless? Surely if I did try to search (nb. I'm not going to try to back your claims up for you) and didn't find any cameras, you could just say I didn't look hard enough. An excellent tactic... for an amateur.

Ah, yes, another semantics challenge. A challenge that I will accept, nonetheless.If there's one camera pointing at the Sun rising and one camera pointing at the Sun setting, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises and sets.If there are two cameras pointing at either where the Sun rises or where the Sun sets, there are cameras pointing at where the sun rises or sets.If there existed two cameras pointing at both where the Sun rises and sets, an extra adjective would be necessary to avoid ambiguity with a logically possible situation. For example: There are cameras pointing to both where the Sun rises and sets.It is very important to understand the difference between the two before trying to be a pedant about it. It also doesn't get you too far in the argument.

I would have thought that from the way I was talking about it it was clear enough that I was talking about individual webcams that point to both the place the Sun rises and the place the Sun sets, rather then webcams pointing to where the Sun rises with separate webcams pointing to where the Sun sets. Apologies if this has caused confusion.

Quote

Oh, what happened to your recent dedication and devotion to your claim? Not so long ago you were willing to take on the task of substantiating your own claims...

I'm only able to do so much with my free time. As I've mentioned before, I think that observing the Sun itself rise and set is excessive.

Quote

...and now I'm supposed to do your job for you? Might that be because you've tried and found out that your claim is entirely baseless? Surely if I did try to search (nb. I'm not going to try to back your claims up for you) and didn't find any cameras, you could just say I didn't look hard enough. An excellent tactic... for an amateur.

Earthcam alone has links to well over a thousand cameras scattered around the world. There's no shortage of webcams, and they aren't hard to find. I didn't think the finding of webcams was an issue.

So if I was to sail around the world, I would at some point drop off the planet? Or if I was view the planet earth from outer-space, it would look like a piece of paper?

Fact is, the earth isn't flat. There is significant scientific evidence disproving the phenomenon, and in a literal sense of the term, there are these things called mountains.

No, if you sail around the planet, you would be going in a circle. Besides, even if you traveled in a straight line, the snow ninjas would kill you long before you got to the edge.

You can not go to space. NASA and their cronies have been lying to you. And that is ridiculous to say that the Earth would look like a piece of paper. It is a disk, just like a beach ball, but with out air; the ball has no air, that is, but the Earth does, even though it is not inflated. This is what causes the illusion that mountains exist. That and bendy light.

Fact is, you do not have any evidence that proves that the Earth is round. Don't try to dump any of the scientific crap on us. We all know that scientists are puppets for NASA. They are not much better than the low life ninjas who inhabit the outer continent.

Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight? I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary. Why couldn't you do this?

Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight? I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary. Why couldn't you do this?

Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight? I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary. Why couldn't you do this?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Ha, that's funny. Any photo posted on this forum that supports a round Earth is instantly considered conspiracy propaganda. Please do not ask for proof you will not accept. It's rude.

Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight? I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary. Why couldn't you do this?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Do it yourself. Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on. I did my science, now you do yours.

Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight? I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary. Why couldn't you do this?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Do it yourself. Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on. I did my science, now you do yours.

I have looked at many spheres. None of them have a straight-line shadow boundary. The Earth is flat.

Have you considered all possible light directions in determining the apparent shape of the light boundary in denying that it could ever appear straight? I did, I found a sphere and looking from the right direction I see a straight line boundary. Why couldn't you do this?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Do it yourself. Find a ball and look at it's boundary edge on. I did my science, now you do yours.

I have looked at many spheres. None of them have a straight-line shadow boundary. The Earth is flat.

I have looked at many buildings. None of them are more than 600 m tall. The Burj Dubai therefore doesn't exist.

Here's a logical proof. On a sphere light casts a circular illuminated area. A circle exists on only one plane. Anything two-dimensional planar object appears straight when viewed precisely from the edge. Therefore the light cast on a sphere can appear straight.